Evaluating Lean Six Sigma's Impact on Operational Efficiency in Small and Medium-Sized Manufacturing Enterprises: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing demand for operational efficiency in small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises (SMEs) has sparked interest in Lean Six Sigma (LSS) methodologies. LSS integrates Lean’s waste elimination focus with Six Sigma’s variability reduction, offering a comprehensive framework for process improvement. Despite its potential, SMEs face unique challenges in implementing LSS, such as financial limitations and resistance to change. This systematic review evaluates the application of LSS in SMEs, analyzing its impact on operational, financial, and quality performance across different industries and geographical regions. The study identifies key success factors, barriers, and research gaps while proposing regression models to predict financial gains associated with LSS adoption. The review followed PRISMA guidelines, sourcing literature from SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Google Scholar published between 2014 and 2024. The inclusion criteria targeted studies involving LSS implementation in manufacturing SMEs. Data extraction included study characteristics, methodologies, and outcomes. A risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The synthesis involved descriptive statistics, effect measures, and sensitivity analyses. Out of 150 initially identified studies, 109 met the inclusion criteria. The findings demonstrate that LSS implementation significantly improves operational performance, with 77.98% of studies showing reductions in cycle time and defect rates. Financial outcomes, including cost savings and ROI, showed moderate to large effects, with 63.58% of the reviewed studies reporting cost reductions. Quality improvements were noted across studies, particularly in First Pass Yield, with 67% of studies demonstrating enhanced quality metrics. The geographic distribution indicated strong research activity in India (23.85%), the United States (6.42%), and Europe (5.50%). Both developed (46.79%) and developing (45.87%) economies contributed extensively. Key barriers included resource constraints (reported in 45% of studies) and resistance to change (noted in 31%). LSS offers substantial benefits for SMEs, driving process efficiency, cost reduction, and quality improvements. However, challenges such as limited resources and organizational resistance must be addressed for successful adoption. This review provides insights into best practices, highlights research gaps, and suggests areas for future investigation, emphasizing the need for customized LSS strategies tailored to the unique contexts of SMEs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".